GR 109215; (July, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 109215 ; July 11, 2000
DOMINICA CUTANDA, et al., petitioners, vs. HEIRS OF ROBERTO CUTANDA, et al., and COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.
FACTS
Private respondents, heirs of Roberto Cutanda, filed an action for recovery of possession, accounting, and damages against petitioners. They claimed ownership over two parcels of land in Bohol, originally owned by their grandfather Roberto, which were allegedly inherited by his children. They asserted that petitioners, who were occupying the lands, refused to vacate upon the heirs’ return to Bohol in 1987. Petitioners countered that the true owner was their predecessor-in-interest, Anastacio Cutanda, from whom they inherited the properties. They asserted open, continuous, and exclusive possession.
The Regional Trial Court ruled in favor of petitioners, declaring them owners through acquisitive prescription and dismissing the complaint. It found petitioners’ possession, tacked to Anastacio’s since 1933, to span over 54 years. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal but modified the ruling, holding there was insufficient evidence to declare petitioners as owners by prescription, though it did not award ownership to the respondents either.
ISSUE
Whether petitioners presented sufficient evidence to prove their ownership of the subject lands through acquisitive prescription.
RULING
Yes, but only for the 31-hectare parcel. The Supreme Court partially granted the petition. For the 31-hectare land, the Court found ample evidence to establish ownership by ordinary acquisitive prescription. Petitioners presented tax declarations in the name of Anastacio Cutanda dating back to 1933, and subsequent tax declarations in their own names, which constitute proof of claim of ownership. Their actual, continuous, public, and adverse possession, coupled with these tax declarations, satisfied the requirement of possession in the concept of an owner for the required period. The Court emphasized that while tax declarations are not conclusive evidence of ownership, they are good indicia of possession in the concept of owner.
However, for the 7-hectare parcel, the Court affirmed the Court of Appeals. Petitioner Florencio Cutanda’s testimony explicitly stated that they were not claiming the 7-hectare lot, which was allegedly owned by another relative, Honorio Cutanda. No tax declaration in Honorio’s name was presented. Therefore, petitioners failed to present any evidence of possession or claim over this specific parcel. Consequently, the Court of Appeals’ ruling that there was insufficient evidence of ownership for the 7-hectare land was upheld. The Supreme Court modified the appellate decision, declaring petitioners the true and lawful owners only of the 31-hectare land.